Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/182/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 182 of 2010
=========================================================
WESTERN
INDIA AIR PRODUCT PVT LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
PASHCHIM
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DG CHAUHAN for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MD RANA for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 30/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.D.G.Chauhan and Mr.M.D.Rana
for the respondent No.2.
It
is to be noted that in identical matters, this Court (Coram: Bankim
N.Mehta,J.) vide common order dated 10-11-2009 passed in Second
Appeal No. 260 of 2009 to Second Appeal No. 271 of 2009 with Civil
Application No. 10656 of 2009 in Second Appeal No. 260 of 2009 to
Civil Application No. 10658 of 2009
in
Second Appeal No. 264 of 2009 with Civil Application No. 10951 of
2009 in Second Appeal No. 261 of 2009 to Civil Application No. 10959
of 2009 in
Second Appeal No. 271 of 2009 admitted the appeals and granted
interim relief. Identical substantial questions of law are involved
in this appeal also and hence, this appeal is also required to be
admitted.
In
view of the above, this Second Appeal is admitted
on the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether
in the facts and circumstances of the Lower Appellate Court was
right in law in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the
10% concession in energy and demand charges in view of the tariff
laid down for high tension industries and for licensee and sanction
holder for supply of electricity as in force from 20.2.1996 in
absence of any statutory Notification for withdrawal of the said
benefit?
(2)
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the respondent Company was
right in law in acting upon the letter of Dy. Secretary of the
Department of Energy and Petrochemical dated 22.9.1995 when the
Department has called upon the Company to amend the tariff?
(3) Whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of amendment
to the tariff structure the respondent Company was right in law in
determining concession of 10% offered to the plaintiff by the Board?
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top